Whether or not an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) between Taiwan and China is first presented to the legislature for debate, the fact remains that the Democratic Progressive Party stands to gain from any perception that the deal damages Taiwan’s political and/or economic interests.
The ECFA is a prelude to wider discussions of a political deal between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government and the Chinese Communist Party. We know this because the Chinese have said as much, and because it is consistent with KMT rhetoric, if not President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) hasty campaign pledge to avoid the issue.
Ma’s promise, while sensible in the context of an election, may have weakened the KMT’s ability to be taken seriously over the long term as both a unificationist organization and a nationalist political group.
Promising not to talk about unification may put fears to rest that difficult decisions would be forced upon people sooner rather than later, but it also suggests that the party has little capacity for developing a sales pitch outlining what unification would entail — assuming, of course, that Taiwanese would have some say in the matter.
A deal with Beijing could carry serious drawbacks for Taiwan, and it would be essential for the KMT to neutralize these by appealing to the emotions through promoting a concern for the fate of ordinary Chinese (recall the impressive Sichuan earthquake aid drive) and the dignity of a unified nation. Taiwan’s leading role in China’s future would need to be elaborated on for a sophisticated Taiwanese audience that gives no weight to the language of Chinese propagandists.
Without the ability to sell such a unification package to ordinary Taiwanese — whatever the fine print may be — havoc and bloodshed will be the KMT’s reward when the critical moment comes.
Intriguingly, the KMT does not seem to understand that for Taiwanese, unification with China would require a growing identification with ordinary Chinese — not their autocratic system of government.
As a party in a democratic state, the KMT will not be able to convince skeptics that it has honorable intentions if it continues to display ignorance of the circumstances facing the bulk of the Chinese population.
If the KMT continues to ignore the plight of exploited peasants, Chinese democracy activists, ethnic Tibetans, Uighurs, Mongolians and others, and cannot champion a country that is ruled by law rather than a technocratic-military clique, then its claim to speak for and defend Taiwan after unification would be laughed at, even by its own supporters.
Democracy activists in China frequently refer to the Taiwanese experience as an inspiration, if not exactly a template. The KMT could make tremendous use of this to advance an argument for unification with the principles (if not practices) that founded the Republic of China. But in doing so, the KMT would also have to demonstrate that it can help reform China — and that, for the foreseeable future, is a terribly far-fetched prospect.
There was a time decades ago when the Nationalist camp boasted genuine intellectuals who thought it important to develop a political philosophy that would unite and strengthen the country, while resisting the advance of communism. Their efforts were not always successful, but at least there was effort.
Those days are long gone. If the president really thinks unification is feasible, then he and his party are going to have to get a whole lot smarter.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS